SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 680

Author:(Wieckowski)

As Amended Ver:June 5, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Updates the term "maiden name" by replacing it with the phrase "last name before first marriage" or a similarly gender-neutral term regarding parentage, in numerous sections of existing law.

Major Provisions

1. Updates the term "maiden name" where appropriate, with "last name before first marriage" in a number of the codes.
2. Updates the term "mother's maiden name" where appropriate, with "parent's last name before first marriage" in a number of the codes.

COMMENTS:

This bill is one in a series of bills over the last few years designed to update the codes and eliminate outdated or pejorative terms that are rarely if ever used today, other than in these statutes, and help ensure statutes are gender neutral. This includes changing "battered woman syndrome" to "intimate partner battering and its effects" AB 220 (Public Safety), Chapter 215, Statutes of 2005; changing "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded person" to "intellectual disability" and "a person with an intellectual disability" AB 2370 (Mansoor), Chapter 448, Statutes of 2012; and making appropriate provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act gender neutral AB 1403 (Judiciary), Chapter 510, Statutes of 2013.

Similar to AB 1236 (Gonzalez Fletcher, 2017), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill sensibly replaces the outdated and somewhat offensive "maiden name" and "mother's maiden name" throughout a number of codes with "last name before first marriage" and "a parent's last name before first marriage." As the author of AB 1236 wisely observed about that bill when heard in the Judiciary Committee:

The term "maiden name" may seem innocuous to some, but for others it can conjure up negative undertones of misogyny and a lack of equal rights.

The history of the term "maiden name" and the practice of a woman being expected to change her name after marriage harken back to Norman concepts of the woman as a man's property, and to the expectations that a bride would be a virgin.

In addition to these oppressive connotations, the term "maiden name" also is increasingly not reflective of the population of people who may have a different birth name. In practice, people change their names for all sorts of reasons. The term "maiden name" does not accurately reflect the situation for people in same-sex marriages or couples simply wishing not to take the husband's last name, transgender individuals changing their name as a step in their transition, individuals who simply do not like their name, and a host of others with varying reasons.

Recent amendments apply the bill's proposed change in terminology to more sections of existing law. The code sections amended by this bill, as recently amended, now address a range of issues, including credit card applications, credit reporting agency information, civil actions for identity theft, recovery from escheatment on behalf of decedent's estates; personal information of crime victims; notification in child custody matters involving an Indian child; access to personal identifying information by wards of the juvenile court. The bill eliminates use of what some consider a pejorative term in favor of a gender neutral term and provides uniformity in application throughout the California codes.

The author has specifically chosen "last name before first marriage," as opposed to "birth name" to ensure that those who have legally changed their names, particularly members of the transgender community, will be able to provide the legal name they have been using and will not be forced to have official records reflect a name that they have very specifically and legally changed.

According to the Author:

The Code sections in SB 680 contain outdated, or at minimum incomplete, including language concerning possible last names of a person requesting a credit card and parent/child relationships. Some codes have not been amended since being added in 1974. Since this time, the state has legalized gay marriage. Consequently, a person other than a woman may change his name after marriage and the term "maiden name" is ill-fitting for such a name change. SB 680 updates a section of the code to reflect current legal social constructs.

Arguments in Support:

The American Civil Liberties Union of California indicates that it supports the bill because it updates statutory language in a manner that "reflects the reality that not all married couples in California include a female spouse and that any spouse—no just female spouses—may have changed their name when marrying."

Arguments in Opposition:

None

FISCAL COMMENTS:

None

VOTES:

SENATE FLOOR: 38-0-0

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Borgeas, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd, Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Grove, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Jones, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

ASM JUDICIARY: 10-1-1

YES: Mark Stone, Chau, Chiu, Gonzalez, Holden, Kalra, Fong, Maienschein, Petrie-Norris, Reyes

NO: Gallagher

ABS, ABST OR NV: Obernolte

UPDATED:

VERSION: June 5, 2019

CONSULTANT: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001057

Date of Hearing: June 4, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Mark Stone, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 680

Author:(Wieckowski) – As Amended Ver:May 28, 2019

As Proposed to be Amended

SENATE VOTE: 38-0

SUBJECT: RECORDS: ELIMINATION OF “MAIDEN NAME”

KEY ISSUE: IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE AN OUTDATED TERM FROM THE califOrnia CODES AND CONTINUE EFFORTS TO MAKE OUR LAWS MORE GENDER NEUTRAL, SHOULD THE TERM "MAIDEN NAME" BE REPLACED with THE TERM "LAST NAME BEFORE FIRST MARRIAGE" and apply equally to parents, not just to mothers?

SYNOPSIS

This bill is one in a series of bills over the last few years designed to update the codes and eliminate outdated or pejorative terms that are rarely if ever used today, other than in these statutes, and to make California's statutes gender neutral. This includes changing "battered woman syndrome" to "intimate partner battering and its effects" (AB 220 (Public Safety), Chap. 215, Stats. 2005); changing "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability" (AB 2370 (Mansoor), Chap. 448, Stats. 2012); and making appropriate provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act gender neutral (AB 1403 (Judiciary), Chap. 510, Stats. 2013). Similar to AB 1236 (Gonzalez Fletcher, 2017), approved by this Committee but held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill sensibly replaces the outdated and somewhat offensive term "maiden name" or "mother's maiden name" throughout the code with "surname before first marriage" and "parents' surname before first marriage."

The term "maiden name" may seem innocuous to some, but for others it can conjure up negative undertones of misogyny and a lack of equal rights. Moreover, "maiden name" does not accurately reflect the situation for people in same-sex marriages or couples simply wishing not to take the husband’s last name, transgender individuals changing their name as a step in their transition, individuals who simply do not like their birth name, and a host of others with varying reasons for changing their legal names. In order to correct an inadvertent drafting error in the May 28^th version of the bill, the author proposes one very minor technical amendment. The change—striking out “born” and inserting “the issue” —will restore the wording of the bill to the wording of existing law. The amendment is described in the analysis. This bill is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union of California and has no opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Updates the term “maiden name” by replacing it with the phrase “last name before first marriage” or a similarly gender-neutral term regarding parentage in numerous sections of existing law. Specifically, this bill:

1. Updates the term “maiden name” where appropriate, with “last name before first marriage” in a number of the codes.
2. Updates the term “mother's maiden name” where appropriate, with “parent’s last name before first marriage” in a number of the codes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires a person seeking a change of name to file a petition with the court, as specified, to obtain a hearing on an order to show cause, and permits, but does not require, the court to grant the petition without a hearing if no written objection is timely filed. Provides that if a petition for name change seeks to conform the petitioner's name to his or her gender identity and no objection is timely filed, then the court shall grant the petition without a hearing. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1277.)
2. Allows a credit card issuer who issues a card to a married woman to issue the card in either the woman's maiden name or her married name. Allows a credit card issuer to require that a married woman requesting a credit card in her maiden name to open a new account. (Civil Code Section 1847.81.)
3. Requires consumer credit reporting agencies assisting with the issuance of a credit card to match on certain data elements, but prevents the agencies from using the mother's maiden name. (Civil Code Section 1785.14.)
4. For purposes of identity theft, includes mother's name as personal, identifying information. (Civil Code Section 1798.92.)
5. In a petition to reclaim property of a decedent that has escheated to the state, requires that the claim include the decedent’s father's name and mother's maiden name. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1355.)
6. Requires a notice in an Indian child custody proceeding to include all names of the child’s biological parents including the “maiden” name. (Family Code Section 180 (b)(5)(C).)
7. Defines “confidential personal information” to include “mother’s maiden name.” (Penal Code Section 964 (b).)
8. Prohibits a ward of the juvenile court from performing any function that provides access to “personal information of private individuals” including “mothers’ maiden names.” (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 219.5 (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill is one in a series of bills over the last few years designed to update the codes and eliminate outdated or pejorative terms that are rarely if ever used today, other than in these statutes, and help ensure statutes are gender neutral. This includes changing “battered woman syndrome” to “intimate partner battering and its effects” (AB 220 (Public Safety), Chap. 215, Stats. 2005); changing “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded person” to “intellectual disability” and “a person with an intellectual disability” (AB 2370 (Mansoor), Chap. 448, Stats. 2012); and making appropriate provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act gender neutral (AB 1403 (Judiciary), Chap. 510, Stats. 2013).

Similar to AB 1236 (Gonzalez Fletcher, 2017), approved by this Committee but held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill sensibly replaces the outdated and somewhat offensive “maiden name” and “mother's maiden name” throughout a number of codes with “last name before first marriage” and “a parent's last name before first marriage.”

The author explains the need for the bill:

The Code sections in SB 680 contain outdated, or at minimum incomplete, including language concerning possible last names of a person requesting a credit card and parent/child relationships. Some codes have not been amended since being added in 1974. Since this time, the state has legalized gay marriage. Consequently, a person other than a woman may change his name after marriage and the term “maiden name” is ill-fitting for such a name change. SB 680 updates a section of the code to reflect current legal social constructs.

As the author of AB 1236 wisely observed about that bill when it was pending before this Committee:

The term “maiden name” may seem innocuous to some, but for others it can conjure up negative undertones of misogyny and a lack of equal rights.

The history of the term “maiden name” and the practice of a woman being expected to change her name after marriage harken back to Norman concepts of the woman as a man’s property, and to the expectations that a bride would be a virgin.

In addition to these oppressive connotations, the term “maiden name” also is increasingly not reflective of the population of people who may have a different birth name. In practice, people change their names for all sorts of reasons. The term “maiden name” does not accurately reflect the situation for people in same-sex marriages or couples simply wishing not to take the husband’s last name, transgender individuals changing their name as a step in their transition, individuals who simply do not like their name, and a host of others with varying reasons.

Across California’s laws, from code sections regarding credit cards to death certificates, there are references to an individual’s or mother’s maiden name. These references show the implicit bias in California code that the only reason someone might change their name would be a woman taking on her husband’s name. For instance, current statute regarding applying for a credit card contains certain provisions specific to a married woman’s application, but not for a man who may have changed his name.

Furthermore, in instances of code regarding identifying information, specifying “maiden name” may actually contribute to informational inequities, where not all relevant information about the last names and birth names of an individual and their parents is accurately captured.

Recent amendments apply the bill’s proposed change in terminology to more sections of existing law. The code sections amended by this bill, as the bill recently was amended, now address a range of issues, including credit card applications, credit reporting agency information, civil actions for identity theft, recovery from escheatment on behalf of decedent's estates; personal information of crime victims; notification in child custody matters involving an Indian child; access to personal identifying information by wards of the juvenile court. This bill eliminates use of what some consider a pejorative term in favor of a gender neutral term and provides uniformity in application throughout the California codes.

The author has specifically chosen “last name before first marriage,” as opposed to “birth name” to ensure that those who have legally changed their names, particularly members of the transgender community, will be able to provide the legal name they have been using and will not be forced to have official records reflect a name that they have very specifically and legally changed.

Minor technical amendment. In order to correct an inadvertent drafting error in the May 28^th version of the bill, one technical amendment is necessary. The change—striking out “born” and inserting “the issue” —will restore the wording of the bill to the wording of existing law:

On Page 7, at line 2: strike out “born” and insert “the issue”

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The American Civil Liberties Union of California indicates that it supports the bill because it updates statutory language in a manner that “reflects the reality that not all married couples in California include a female spouse and that any spouse—no just female spouses—may have changed their name when marrying.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Civil Liberties Union of California

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 680

Author: Wieckowski (D)

Amended: 4/4/19

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 8-0, 4/2/19

AYES: Jackson, Borgeas, Allen, Caballero, Monning, Stern, Umberg, Wieckowski

SUBJECT: Names

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill modernizes the law governing the issuance of credit cards and the names to be placed on those cards.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, in conformity with the federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1601, et seq.), governing, among other things, the issuance of credit cards. (Civ. Code § 1747 et seq.)
2. Provides that if a card issuer has determined in the normal course of business that it will issue a card to a married woman, the card shall be issued bearing either the maiden name or married name of the woman, as the woman may direct. (Civ. Code § 1747.81(a).)
3. Authorizes the issuer of a credit card to require that a married woman requesting a card in her maiden name open a new account in that name. (Civ. Code § 1747.81(b).)

This bill:

1. Amends the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act to provide that if a card issuer has determined in the normal course of business that it will issue a card to a married person, the card shall be issued bearing either the legal name before marriage or married name of the person, as the person may direct.
2. Authorizes card issuers to require that a married person requesting a card bearing the person’s legal name before marriage to open a new account in that name.

Comments

According to the author:

Existing law, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, among other things, authorizes a credit card issuer to issue a card to a married woman bearing either her maiden name or her married name as the woman directs and authorizes a credit card issuer to require a married woman requesting a card bearing her maiden name to open an account in that name.

This section of the Song-Beverly Act contains outdated, or at minimum incomplete, language concerning possible last names of a person requesting a credit card. It has not been amended since it was added in 1974. Since this time, the state has legalized gay marriage. Consequently, a person other than a woman may change their name after marriage and the term “maiden name” is ill-fitting for such a name change. SB 680 updates a section of the code to reflect current legal social constructs.

Modernizing outdated language

As our society’s understanding of marriage and other cultural traditions evolves, our laws must keep pace. This bill updates a law passed in 1974 and not touched since. Its language reflects a now antiquated and narrow view of marriage. The bill replaces references to “married woman” and “maiden name” with neutral terms of “married person” and “legal name before marriage.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/3/19)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/3/19)

None received

Prepared by: Christian Kurpiewski / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

4/5/19 13:46:44

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2019-2020 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 680 (Author:Wieckowski)

Version: February 22, 2019

Hearing Date: April 2, 2019

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Names

DIGEST

This bill modernizes the law governing the issuance of credit cards and the names to be placed on those cards.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If a credit card issuer has determined that it will issue a card to a married woman, existing law requires the credit card issuer to issue the card bearing either the woman’s maiden or married name, at the woman’s request. The card issuer may require the woman to open a new account in the woman’s maiden name if she so chooses that option.

This bill modernizes this language to take account of our society’s evolved understanding of marriage and the attendant cultural traditions. The bill amends the statute to address married persons and their birth or married names. The bill is author-sponsored. There is no known support or opposition.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, in conformity with the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601, et seq., governing, among other things, the issuance of credit cards. (Civ. Code § 1747 et seq.)
2. Provides that if a card issuer has determined in the normal course of business that it will issue a card to a married woman, the card shall be issued bearing either the maiden name or married name of the woman, as the woman may direct. (Civ. Code § 1747.81(a).)
3. Authorizes the issuer of a credit card to require that a married woman requesting a card in her maiden name open a new account in that name. (Civ. Code § 1747.81(b).)

This bill:

1. Amends the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act to provide that if a card issuer has determined in the normal course of business that it will issue a card to a person, the card shall be issued bearing either the birth name or married name of the person, as the person may direct.
2. Authorizes card issuers to require that a married person requesting a card bearing the person’s birth name to open a new account in that name.

COMMENTS

1. Stated intent of the bill

Existing law, the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, among other things, authorizes a credit card issuer to issue a card to a married woman bearing either her maiden name or her married name as the woman directs and authorizes a credit card issuer to require a married woman requesting a card bearing her maiden name to open an account in that name.

This section of the Song-Beverly Act contains outdated, or at minimum incomplete, language concerning possible last names of a person requesting a credit card. It has not been amended since it was added in 1974. Since this time, the state has legalized gay marriage. Consequently, a person other than a woman may change their name after marriage and the term “maiden name” is ill-fitting for such a name change. SB 680 updates a section of the code to reflect current legal social constructs.

2. Modernizing outdated language

As our society’s understanding of marriage and other cultural traditions evolves, our laws must keep pace. This bill updates a law passed in 1974 and not touched since. Its language reflects a now antiquated and narrow view of marriage. The bill replaces references to “married woman” and “maiden name” with neutral terms of “married person” and “birth name.” However, there are people within our communities that no longer go by their birth names for a variety of reasons when they enter into marriage. In response to this reality, and in an effort to be more inclusive, the author has agreed to the following amendment:

Amendment

Replace each use of “birth name” in Civil Code Section 1747.81 with “legal name before marriage”

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION

None known

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending: None known

Prior: None known

**************